A woman is having an abortion – and something goes wrong. Let’s say she goes into cardiac arrest. The bells start ringing and at some point the administrator or anyone for that matter calls 911. Shortly, an ambulance arrives. The doctor and maybe some staff follows the ambulance to the hospital. The hospital technicians take over and hopefully the woman’s life is saved.
Meanwhile, the abortion doctor did not have admitting privileges to that hospital. The woman is revived and leaves the hospital days later.
This is the way things usually happen when there is an emergency at an abortion clinic (or, for that matter, any other medical facility). Hospital emergency rooms are there to treat the emergency. They don’t care who the patient is, what country they come from, whether or not they have money. Their task is to treat the patient and ask questions later.
So, you gotta wonder why the anti-abortion movement has spent so much time advocating for the passage of state legislation that would require an abortion doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital? Actually, that’s a stupid question. Those of us who have spent time in the world of abortion – including the antis – know that such legislation is just another way to possibly close an abortion clinic.
This issue, in fact, is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. A few weeks ago, oral arguments were heard in the Whole Women’s Health case and a decision is expected in a few months on this (and other) question.
On its face, requiring admitting privileges to a hospital doesn’t sound so bad, does it? But dig a little deeper and you get a great sense of the brilliant minds in the anti-abortion movement that are crafting this kind of legislation. For they know that when you are an abortion doctor it can be difficult, if not impossible, to get admitting privileges. And the reasons have nothing to do with their skills as a doctor.
First of all, in many parts of the country the abortion doctor is a pariah in their community and the politics of the local hospital might be such that they just do not want to give the doctor admitting privileges. That’s especially true of religious affiliated hospitals and in the more backward and parochial rural areas of the country. The hospital board may be anti-abortion or they may just be concerned about local protestors showing up should they find out the abortion doctor can admit patients.
Second – and most ironic – is the fact that to get admitting privileges in most hospitals you have to commit a certain number of patients to that hospital to remain in “good standing.” But abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures performed in this country and the number of cases where a woman needs to be admitted is incredibly low. The doctors are being “punished” because they are being good doctors.
But the antis don’t care about these arguments. It’s like the proposals that require clinic hallways to be a certain width. The antis don’t give a crap about the woman’s health, although that is their argument. They are just looking (and discovering) ways to burden the clinic to the point where they simply cannot afford to stay open.
I have got to give credit where credit is due – the strategy is brilliant and were it not for some brave courts, many clinics in this country would have shut their doors by now because of these laws. Let’s just hope this current Supreme Court can see through this trickery and strike down these totally unnecessary laws.

March 22, 2016 at 5:12 am
I think you hit on it in paragraph 7, Pat. The killer is indeed the weakest link in the chain leading from conception to death before birth. That’s why every Sunday I visit the homes of six killers in the Philadelphia area with my sign, A KILLER LIVES HERE.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I am working more or less alone.
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 3:46 am
Pat, how do I stop people from shutting up after I say something? Lie to ’em?
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 5:05 am
That’s, liedoem?
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 7:57 am
What do you mean, John? Who do you want to shut up?
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 1:52 pm
I responded below by mistake.
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 7:57 am
Not surprised that you are working alone, John. That form of protest is for the most part passe. And the doctors who are still around have become immune to this form of protest. They’ve become hardened over the years. To be honest, the sight of someone your age standing outside of a house (or clinic for that matter) is rather sad/pathetic. Go work in a homeless shelter and wear your anti-abortion shirts. You’ll influence more people that way.
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 1:50 pm
No, I want to talk. But often after I’ve said something, no one responds. I think it’s because I tell the truth and I was wondering — do I have to lie to get a response?
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Hey, that’s not a bad idea. I might try that.
LikeLike
March 30, 2016 at 9:32 am
John, if you are saying you want to talk to the patients I think by now most people know the routine. They know there are folks out there like you who will try to dissuade them and they just don’t want to talk about it at that point. Believe me, they’ve thought about it enough, they’ve maybe consulted with others, they know what it means for their “baby” and they’re ready to move on. They just don’t want any more aggravation.
LikeLike
March 30, 2016 at 11:19 am
Got mixed up here. I meant it’s not a bad idea going to a homeless shelter wearing an anti-abortion t-shirt..
LikeLike
March 29, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Actually, Mr. Dunkle, you and your ilk focus on PRECISELY that segment of life in which you can do absolutely NOTHING. Which makes your work really easy. You can’t stop the pregnant woman from smoking, starving or substituting drugs for nourishment and thereby save the resulting child from risks of retardation, lifelong stultification, highly increased likelihood of criminality, school failure, imprisonment, and poverty.
But you CAN go parading around pretending to be heroes! Nice gig, and emotionally very satisfying for you. Just too bad for the kid, but that’s not your problem.
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 6:02 am
So, Pat, how what’s the rate of abortions requiring emergency room treatment as compared to the rate of women who either need ER treatment or die as a result of pregnancy?
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 6:03 am
this is a test message
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 7:59 am
I figured it was a rhetorical question, Chuck. Of course, the rate is higher for those giving birth. But, you know, i never liked playing that card because it felt to me like we were favoring abortion over giving birth.
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 6:21 am
Chuck, isn’t this like asking what the rate of those murdered in Chicago is as compared to the rate of those dying of old age? Your implication of course is that murder is just fine since the rate of the murdered is much lower.
LikeLike
March 29, 2016 at 10:05 am
Congrats on maintaining message discipline, Mr. Dunkle. Always using the term “murder” to distract people from the reality that once a child is born, it is in need of nurture that neither you nor the other so-called “pro-lifers” will give. If the general public realized that, they would wonder why you limit your opposition to abortion to simply ensure that your feelings about it aren’t hurt. They would also wonder why you and your ilk never get beyond fear and into care. Satan thanks you for generating more souls for him.
LikeLike
March 29, 2016 at 10:41 am
The reality, Chuck, is that before a child is born, she is in even greater need of nurture and protection that neither I nor the other so-called pro-lifers will give.
LikeLike